More on (or moron) Santorum

Historical analogies can be tricky. Santorum compares abortion rights with slavery, and says they are equally abhorrent. Of course, that assumes that his premise about the personality of the foetus is taken for granted, which I don't concede.

But there's a much closer and more valid analogy to slavery, in my opinion. Namely his statement that allowing gay marriage is an offence against freedom of religion. I would argue that this is so only in the same way that abolitionism infringed on the property rights of slave holders.

Descendants of slaves are likely to find his analogy more than somewhat offensive, I suspect. But then, he's not really talking to them. He's talking to the white middle class bigots, who use such talk to persuade themselves they're not really racists.

Orwellian

Less is More, War is Peace. And gay marriage is a breach of freedom of religion. In other words, Santorum's freedom of religion requires that he be able to deny others, like gay people, the freedom to practise theirs. This is just another case of the misuse of language.

Allowing gay people to marry doesn't affect anyone's freedom of religion. But this elaborate tortured logic that says that if gay people can marry that somehow lessens the rights of other people is just nonsense.

If people want to use that sort of logic, where will it end? My religion says that bigotry and hatred are sins. Using Santorum's logic, I could argue that his statements affect my freedom of religion.

They're not gonna listen.

Judith Warner misses the point a bit I think, in the New York Times. If you believe, as the modern Christian fundamentalists do, that the truth is made available by revelation and not from empirical data and reasoning, you are not persuadable by any amount of facts.

Although it's not beyond controversy, there is certainly evidence that many of the Founding Fathers of America were deists or had similar beliefs that would be anathema to today's prominent crop of Christian mullahs. Strange that these same ignoramuses like to appeal to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers when they appear to know so little of either.

But then, as I said, to these bozos facts just don't matter.

One born every minute

My brother in law is a dog trainer. He's good, he's done courses and is properly qualified, and he gets results. A few days ago he met a new client. They had a dog from a puppy mill, and it was having behaviour problems. But he was not their first port of call. The first place they went was an "animal psychic". Seriously. The "psychic" told them that the dog told him/her that the dog had previously been hit. (Duh!) Apparently people pay money for this nonsense. I wish I could meet them. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

Non-denial

In response to a rumor that they are moving corporate HQ from London to Hong Kong, HSBC issued a statement calling the rumor "speculative and presumptuous." It might be both, but this is a non-denial if ever I read one. If it's not true, why on earth didn't they say so? It makes me think it's more likely than I did before I read their statement.

It might also be a product of the trend in bureaucracies and corporations to use weasel words for everything. Either way, it's silly.

How sad.

What can one say in the face of obstinate idiocy? Nothing, really. There's no point in arguing. There is no basis of common agreement, such as logic, or acceptance of empirical evidence, to discussion things sanely with people like these. "If I wake up on May 22 it means I'm not one of the elect." said one. No, it doesn't. It means you got it wrong. Inability to encompass the possibility that you have it wrong is a sign to me that you're either stupid or crazy, possibly both.

And the first thing annoying me is ...

That my memory is going. I know read something stupid in the last 30 minutes that I was going to sound off about, which led me to set up the blog in the first place. But I'm damned if I can remember what it was. Damn it all.